Did Bush tax cuts cost the U.S. economy $6.6 trillion? Trump/Bush Tax Cuts will Devastate America!

[Mainecat]

Good read even for imbecilic Trumpers here...

Did Bush tax cuts cost the U.S. economy $6.6 trillion? Trump/Bush Tax Cuts will Devastate America!

July 11, 2014

Americans have lost $6.6 trillion from 2001, when the tax cuts first took effect, through 2012, according to Johnston. That's more than one-third of the country's annual GDP.

"We're not investing in the future of America," Johnston tells Yahoo Finance in the video above. "Because we have less revenue, we are not putting the same money we used to put into research ... infrastructure ... education. We are creating a more and more inefficient economy in the name of 'tax cuts will save us.'"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/are-tax-cuts-good-or-bad-for-the-economy--161158700.html

Memo To Steven Mnuchin: Trump's Tax Plan Would Add $7 Trillion To The Debt Over 10 Years

To be more precise, TPC estimated that Trump’s campaign tax plan would reduce federal revenues by $6.2 trillion over 10 years. Including added interest costs and macroeconomic effects, TPC figured it would boost the debt by at least $7 trillion over the first decade and $20.7 trillion over 20 years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/01/19/memo-to-steven-mnuchin-trumps-tax-plan-would-add-7-trillion-to-the-debt-over-10-years/#7ddb8f906554

The Bush tax cuts is at the root of today’s deficit problem.

The surplus in the fiscal 2001 federal budget was $127 billion. The 2010 budget had a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. The long-term national debt more than doubled from $5.6 trillion in 2000 to $13.6 trillion in 2010, mostly under Bush’s watch.
Federal tax receipts in 2010 were 14.9 percent of gross domestic product . In 2000 it was as high as 20 percent.

https://ourfuture.org/fact_sheet/ten-years-bush-tax-cuts-benefiting-rich

(In case you are wondering, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was $1.26 trillion through 2011 and the Medicare prescription drug program totaled $272 billion.)

 

[Zambroski]

Poor MC.  "DEVASTATE AMERICA!"

 

 

 

[Ez ryder]

why was spending a extra 10 trillion in under 8 ok with u ?

[Anler]

I read a piece several years ago about this. Between the bush tax cuts, Iraq/Afghanistan wars, stimulus and cash for clunkers it was estimated around $6 trillion. Which makes sense because how many trillions have we gone in the hole since 2001? In 2000 we arguably had a balanced budget, we certainly didn't have the deficits we did by 2008 or now. I'm sure the internet economists will dismiss the MATH of how we got to -$20 trillion because MC posted this thread.

[Mainecat]

1 hour ago, Anler said:

I read a piece several years ago about this. Between the bush tax cuts, Iraq/Afghanistan wars, stimulus and cash for clunkers it was estimated around $6 trillion. Which makes sense because how many trillions have we gone in the hole since 2001? In 2000 we arguably had a balanced budget, we certainly didn't have the deficits we did by 2008 or now. I'm sure the internet economists will dismiss the MATH of how we got to -$20 trillion because MC posted this thread.

I thought it was a good read.The Russian bots here will post a meme and add the usual childish remark they were taught in Putin class

Edited April 26, 2017 by Mainecat

[Anler]

2 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

why was spending a extra 10 trillion in under 8 ok with u ?

Nobody says it's ok asswipe. All of Obama's budgets were continuing resolutions. Do you know what those are? The republican president from 2001-2009 and the republican Congress from 2010 to now haven't done shit about reducing govt waste or reducing spending. So let's not play this game of "look what Obama did" or "look what bush did" because neither of them have any intention of getting us out of this mess. In fact right now they are thinking of ways to steal the rest of social security to pay for wars. 

[Highmark]

Poor MC.   You got to love the left.  When they propose a program they never look at the what ifs.  Happened big time with Obamacare.   You never can look at changes to tax policy without some estimation of what it will do to economic activity and historically its always increased it and tax revenue.     

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

[Ez ryder]

bull shit I can go back and find posts about your circle jerk crew defending it

[Anler]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Poor MC.   You got to love the left.  When they propose a program they never look at the what ifs.  Happened big time with Obamacare.   You never can look at changes to tax policy without some estimation of what it will do to economic activity and historically its always increased it and tax revenue.     

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

And how much did spending increase? Your example is really not valid because anytime tax cuts are made, spending increases accompany them. So does increased spending have an effect on the economy and tax revenues? And if these tax cuts are so effective why are we $20 trillion in debt with the lowest tax rates in the last 100 years? 

[Anler]

If we lower taxes to 0 then we won't have any debt and we will be swimming in MoNeYyyyy!!!!1111

[Highmark]

2 minutes ago, Anler said:

And how much did spending increase? Your example is really not valid because anytime tax cuts are made, spending increases accompany them. So does increased spending have an effect on the economy and tax revenues? And if these tax cuts are so effective why are we $20 trillion in debt with the lowest tax rates in the last 100 years? 

Fuck dude I'm not saying spending was held in check.   It wasn't under Reagan either.   It simply don't change that tax cuts can increase tax revenue.

Bush spent on everything, not just the military and according to people like you govt spending is good.   

[Highmark]

4 minutes ago, Anler said:

If we lower taxes to 0 then we won't have any debt and we will be swimming in MoNeYyyyy!!!!1111

If we raise taxes to 100% we still would have dept because the govt's already spends more than that much money this while not accounting for the decline in economic of which such policy would bring on.

I love it that you guys only see the bottom part of the Laffer curve.   Its priceless.  

Edited April 26, 2017 by Highmark

[Anler]

3 hours ago, Highmark said:

If we raise taxes to 100% we still would have dept because the govt's already spends more than that much money this while not accounting for the decline in economic of which such policy would bring on.

I love it that you guys only see the bottom part of the Laffer curve.   Its priceless.  

You know what? I don't know why I give a shit. If you can't beat em, join em right? I'm gonna only vote republican now and take every tax cut I can.

Up till now I have been very conservative with my taxes and usually pay extra just so I don't get any red flags and prompt an audit. But fuck that now. I'm gonna get every penny I can because really nobody is going to do shit about spending or the debt. And apparently NOT paying less taxes is better so that's what I'm gonna do.

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Anler

[Highmark]

4 minutes ago, Anler said:

You know what? I don't know why I give a shit. If you can't beat em, join em right? I'm gonna only vote republican now and take every tax cut I can.

Up till now I have been very conservative with my taxes and usually pay extra just so I don't get any red flags and prompt an audit. But fuck that now. I'm gonna get every penny I can because really nobody is going to do shit about spending or the debt. And apparently paying less taxes is better so that's what I'm gonna do.

 

Same here.  Its unrealistic to think the govt will not spend any extra money we give them.   BOTH SIDES.  

What I love is the members from both sides who are worried about the tax cuts being revenue neutral on paper.      Like that has EVER mattered to them.   Its always OK to overspend for your chosen "causes."

Edited April 26, 2017 by Highmark

[Anler]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Same here.  Its unrealistic to think the govt will not spend any extra money we give them.   BOTH SIDES.  

Im going full neocon now. Fuck it.  

[Highmark]

Just now, Anler said:

Im going full neocon now. Fuck it.  

   I just want more of what I earn and for us to keep out of other countries business.  Damn why can't we get more like the Paul's in DC.  

[Anler]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

   I just want more of what I earn and for us to keep out of other countries business.  Damn why can't we get more like the Paul's in DC.  

Im going to the Caymen islands in the fall. Time to get serious.  

[Sleepr2]

Obambi did not repeal the tax cuts , their the Obambi tax cuts now,

[spin_dry]

trump is a high risk and hopefully high reward individual. the problem is that he doesn't always get the rewards. but trump humpers are ready to roll the dice. 

[Mainecat]

3 hours ago, spin_dry said:

trump is a high risk and hopefully high reward individual. the problem is that he doesn't always get the rewards. but trump humpers are ready to roll the dice. 

Hes a multi ...multi  failure.

[snoughnut]

2 hours ago, spin_dry said:

trump is a high risk and hopefully high reward individual. the problem is that he doesn't always get the rewards. but trump humpers are ready to roll the dice. 

 

14 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Hes a multi ...multi  failure.